Trump sends investigators to Hawaii to look into Obama !!

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Unfortunately, I know that the short-form certificate is not valid for many sensitive positions within government, so Obama is not being held to any higher standard than any other applicant for a high security position would be.

With all apologies to BH, I feel more justified now than before in calling a lie a lie. This statement above, put forth as fact is either wrong or a lie. You pick which or prove me wrong and humilate me.

reply to post by Sinnthia


You picked my post apart for answering your question, and then saying it was irrelavent? If it was irrelavent, why did you ask?

I said that this has served to illuminate a glaring hole. You asked what the hole was, and I pointed out the potential problems with our process, then you said none of that matters, because it is what it is?

#1. He has never satisfied the Constitutionaly requirement, no one has declared him a "natural born citizen." For whatever reason, everyone has stopped just short of making that statement, and that is why the controversy lives on. In fact some of the do-gooders that tried to help, like Hawaii's governor, actually added fuel to the fire, because they had to back off their own statements.

#2. I have stated that I do not want to see him impeached, I just want to see it fixed before the 2012 election. Officials are saying the campaigns will probably top $1 billion in spending each. That is ridiculous!! Lets eliminate one of the stupider points before the election really heats up.

#3. Whether or not it is politically correct, Obama is our first "black" president, he has a "Muslim" sounding name, while we are at war with several Muslim countries, he attended foreign schools, and he was relatively unknown before he became a candidate. Of course he is going to fall under extra scrutiny compared to most previous presidents. It isn't fair, some of it is based off hatred and bigotry, but it is what it is, and it is to be expected. You can pretend you are blind to these things, but no one is. If there was a better system in place, then we could avoid some of these sillier arguments, but as it stands now, Obama is left to defend himself with the information he has, and unfortunately that information is not adequate at this point.

Obama is not the first president to face this scrutiny. Lincoln's bloodlines were often called into question, many people thought he was partially black, and he faced a lot of scrutiny for it. JFK had to constantly defend his Catholic faith, and declared he was running "as a Democrat, not as a Catholic," and Bush Jr. is still being criticized for the religious undertones and possible motivations for invading the Middle East. It is not a new phenomenon.

Originally posted by Sinnthia
I would agree 100% if my question were a general, what is the glaring hole in our election process but I was specifically asking what hole Obama highlighted.

Ah! I understand. Thanks. And I agree. Obama didn't highlight anything.

Unfortunately I find it harder to see what Obama did with this birther issue to highlight the fact that my congrsssman is not properly vetted. Get my drift?

Absolutely got it.

Originally posted by Sinnthia
With all apologies to BH, I feel more justified now than before in calling a lie a lie. This statement above, put forth as fact is either wrong or a lie. You pick which or prove me wrong and humilate me.

You're right, Sinn. It's wrong. Obama IS being held to a higher standard than any other previous president. And the presidency is certainly a high security position. We can't compare the standards for the current presidency against the standard for the CIA, for example. We have to compare apples to apples. In other words, this president to previous presidents. And Obama is being held to a higher standard than previous presidents. Not to mention that he has gone further to prove to the people, that he is who he says he is, than any other previous president.

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Unfortunately, I know that the short-form certificate is not valid for many sensitive positions within government, so Obama is not being held to any higher standard than any other applicant for a high security position would be.

With all apologies to BH, I feel more justified now than before in calling a lie a lie. This statement above, put forth as fact is either wrong or a lie. You pick which or prove me wrong and humilate me.

I personally know people that have had to produce more than an official short-form certificate. I don't know exactly how to "prove" that to you, but it is a fact. I have friends that currently work for the FBI, I have a friend that is an EOD specialist for the Secret Service, and I have a friend that was a special advisor to Colin Powell. Each of those sensitive positions requires much, much more than a short-form certificate. In fact, one of those people took an extra year getting hired, because what they provided was inadequate, the application was denied, and they had to go back and corroborate the information. Everyone of those positions required many months of interviews with family, friends, ex-neighbors, and even a battery of lie-detector tests!

I, myself, went through several layers of interviews with the CIA, and I know from experience what they require in the form of documentation. Just to get started, you have to list every address you have ever lived at since age 18, and at least one person unique person that knew you while you lived at that address.

If my personal experience isn't enough, then check it out for yourself. Go apply.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I personally know people that have had to produce more than an official short-form certificate.

For the presidency? We have to compare Obama to other presidents, not other positions with different requirements.

reply to post by Sinnthia


All the discussion on this thread made me flashback to my own Life. Decades ago, when I was of the young age to start dating, my mother warned me about dating and possibly marrying someone who was "colored" (she never specified what color), Children of those marriages would always be seen as "different" in American society, not accepted.

She would carry that sentiment to her death, even warning her grandchildren not to marry any Asian. They politely listened to her, then went and married whomever they fell in love with.

I guess, then, it really should not have been a surprise to me that, even in this day and age, our President still could not be accepted by some in our society. The child of a "mixed marriage" would still "suffer", as my mother warned.

Old thinking takes a while to die out.

I may not hear her words echoed out there, but I sense the same "truth" she tried to convey: children of "mixed marriages" would not be "accepted".

reply to post by anon72


Even should Trump's findings prove to be groundless, incalculable damage would be wrought merely by virtue of doubt having been instilled in the public mind.

Lyndon Johnson: "In our next press appearance I intend to accuse my opponent of being a regular, enthusiastic pig ****er."

PR Flunky: "But sir, that's not true."

Lyndon Johnson: "I know that! But let's make the bastard DENY it."

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


We only have to restrict the discussion in that way if we are discussing impeachment. This president should be judged against all previous presidets; that is a fair stance.

If we are discussing necessary and important changes to make for upcoming elections, then we have to look at similar positions with similar security clearances and make sure the procedures are equivalent.

I have stated many times that Obama is not to blame for this mess. I believe he provided everything he had, and I do not want to see him impeached.

My opinion is that the "birther" discussion should now be centered on what we propose to do about the 2012 and subsequent elections. Do we want them to be similar to every previous election, or do we want to make some changes?

reply to post by dereks


Hmmm.......................can you show me his Long Form Birth certificate then? Cant find the Link ANYWHERE on the Net...............Thats what I AM INTERESTED IN..........Interested in the details,the fine print.Too much to ask for? Not when its all about transparency.

See,its not about his race,Its about transparency,and the lack of it. For someone to play THAT card,throughout his campaign,I have to give him a failing "F".

reply to post by mistermonculous


I once heard, after JFK was assassinated, that Lydon Johnson, 2 minutes before the first shot rang out, put his hands over his ears. Makes you wonder about some thiings.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


What does it mean? I posted earlier and no one responded. The Constitution says "natural born citizen, OR, citizen of the United States."""" What does "or" mean?

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Sinnthia

 

You picked my post apart for answering your question, and then saying it was irrelavent? If it was irrelavent, why did you ask?

Because I was hoping for a relevant answer to the relevant question. Not your trailing off distraction. Why did you chose to offer up something nonrelevant as an answer if you wanted me to care about your answer? I answer the question I am asked when I respect someone enough to bother responding at all. I assumed you had a similar standard and could not help but notice that when I ask what glaring hole OBAMA'S presidency have highlighted, anthing about how mayors are elected is not an answer. Obama opened that hole as much as any president as even the most valid birther argument does nothing to touch local or other federal level election standards in anway. Why didn't you just offer up a relevant answer?

I said that this has served to illuminate a glaring hole. You asked what the hole was, and I pointed out the potential problems with our process, then you said none of that matters, because it is what it is?

I did not just say none of that matters. I said that I did not see even a little how anything relating to Obama served to illiuminate glaring holes in your congressional elections. Perhaps you skipped a few lines?

#1. He has never satisfied the Constitutionaly requirement, no one has declared him a "natural born citizen." For whatever reason, everyone has stopped just short of making that statement, and that is why the controversy lives on. In fact some of the do-gooders that tried to help, like Hawaii's governor, actually added fuel to the fire, because they had to back off their own statements.

BH says you are honest and I want to believe that. I am going to need to give it a try though, ok? Obama's birth certificate clearly states he was born in Honlulu. Why does anyone need to declare him eligible out loud in a speech for you? He was vetted and declared eligible as is the standard process. I am not sure why you keep claiming that never happened because it did. But that does not even matter.

You be this honest, rational thinker I am wanting to believe you are. You have to decide if that birth certificate is a forgery or not. That is really your only option here. It is a birth certificate. Birth certificates prove place of birth. His says Hawaii. He was declared eligible before the election. Birthers even point out Hawaii's different eligibility form in some of their arguments. You guys need to get together with this stuff. So either his BC is a forgery or you are asking for someone to say out loud something you acknowledge has been proven on paper already. Outside of that, your logica falls apart on this pretty fast.

#2. I have stated that I do not want to see him impeached, I just want to see it fixed before the 2012 election. Officials are saying the campaigns will probably top $1 billion in spending each. That is ridiculous!! Lets eliminate one of the stupider points before the election really heats up.

What do you want to see fixed? I have asked this already and still have no answer. Tell me its something like the birther bills. Have you noticed yet that each of them specifically points out that the BC posted online would be among those accepted as legal proof of place of birth in every single one of those proposals? Neat how that works out. So that fixes nothing. Those all just say Obama has to show everyone that photo that has been online for a couple years already. What other solutions we got cooking? What do you want to fix? Maybe I want to help you fix it.

#3. Whether or not it is politically correct, Obama is our first "black" president, he has a "Muslim" sounding name, while we are at war with several Muslim countries, he attended foreign schools, and he was relatively unknown before he became a candidate.

All stuff that should be really scary to anyone that is afraid of things that sound like other stuff and are afraid of black people and foreign stuff. Sorry if I am not one of those people. Are you one of those people?

Of course he is going to fall under extra scrutiny compared to most previous presidents. It isn't fair, some of it is based off hatred and bigotry, but it is what it is, and it is to be expected. You can pretend you are blind to these things, but no one is. If there was a better system in place, then we could avoid some of these sillier arguments, but as it stands now, Obama is left to defend himself with the information he has, and unfortunately that information is not adequate at this point.

I have no idea why you would claim I am trying to be blind to these things as I post in a birther thread. I am pretty sure I got that there is a lot of hatred against him because he is black and sounds scary with his weird name. I am honestly lost for words here because I honestly cannot believe anyone would read one single line I have ever posted, let alone in a birther thread, and accuse me of turning a blind eye to mindlessly bigotted racism. That pretty much defines the birther movement. I am still hoping your ability to acknowledge these things pulls you above it but I get more of a Bill Oreilly vibe.

You know what I mean. "Tonight, scandolous, half naked women that people should not have to look at. I am totally against this stuff being shoved in our faces. Now lets watch a few clips then while I talk we will roll more clips on the side, then I will get my panel to come in so we can rerun the clips and discuss them, then at the end of the show, during the wrap up, I will rerun these clips again because, like I said, I do not support people have to see this stuff. This stuff, right here. Lets just leave it onscreen so you really know what we dont advocate you having to see."
Maybe thats just me.

Obama is not the first president to face this scrutiny. Lincoln's bloodlines were often called into question, many people thought he was partially black, and he faced a lot of scrutiny for it. JFK had to constantly defend his Catholic faith, and declared he was running "as a Democrat, not as a Catholic," and Bush Jr. is still being criticized for the religious undertones and possible motivations for invading the Middle East. It is not a new phenomenon.

You left out Chester A Arthur who was accused of being born on Canadian soil. Not that he was Catholic, half black, or a moron - specifically that he was born outside the US. Trust me, I am on top of this.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You're right, Sinn. It's wrong.

Please forgive my poor phrasing above but I really only meant the apology to you and the prove it wrong part to getreadyalready since it was his claim. I did not mean you need to prove me wrong or admit I was right. Sorry, I just wanted to appologize for going back to the L word so fast after our last little exchange. See, I feel getreadyalready is dancing dangerously close to and edge that he seems quite reluctant to either step off or retreat safely from. I find it odd. He does not want to say the birth certificate is not a birth certificae but he neither wants to call it a forgery. I am confused then what his confusion is there. Then with this claim the Obama was never vetted. I guess when most birthers use the argument that something is suspicious because Hawaii used a different eligibility form in the vetting process, I get a little confused to see a birther then claim his eligibility was never vetted. I guess these threads remind me of a logic black hole and I cannot look away.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I personally know people that have had to produce more than an official short-form certificate.

I honestly believe that IN YOUR STATE, you do.

I don't know exactly how to "prove" that to you, but it is a fact.

Quite easily. Here is your statement again.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Unfortunately, I know that the short-form certificate is not valid for many sensitive positions within government, so Obama is not being held to any higher standard than any other applicant for a high security position would be.

So just pick any one of those positions and we will take a look at the requirements for that job. Seems fairly simple to me.

I have friends that currently work for the FBI, I have a friend that is an EOD specialist for the Secret Service, and I have a friend that was a special advisor to Colin Powell. Each of those sensitive positions requires much, much more than a short-form certificate. In fact, one of those people took an extra year getting hired, because what they provided was inadequate, the application was denied, and they had to go back and corroborate the information. Everyone of those positions required many months of interviews with family, friends, ex-neighbors, and even a battery of lie-detector tests!

What does a lie detector test an background check have to do with a short form vs a long form? If a short form BC is not enough because they need to do lie detector exams, are you saying if they have a long form, no lie detector exam or is that completely irrelevant? I understand the concept of different levels of security clearance but we are specifically discussing long form vs short form bc. None of that other extra stuff matters unless it was only in place of the absence of a long form. Very odd style you work with here.

I, myself, went through several layers of interviews with the CIA, and I know from experience what they require in the form of documentation. Just to get started, you have to list every address you have ever lived at since age 18, and at least one person unique person that knew you while you lived at that address.

Again, what does that have to do with a long form vs. a short from? Are you claiming that having a long form gets you out of that background scruitiny or is this again completely irrelevant to the topic and your exact claim as quoted?

If my personal experience isn't enough, then check it out for yourself. Go apply.

I live in NY state where I have no access to a long form birth certificate. Are you telling me I would lose right there? Please tell me that is what you are saying? Drop all the "they had to interview my 4th grade teacher" nonsense as that has nothing to do with your claim that a long form is required over a short form for many jobs. I am still waiting for you to show ONE.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I personally know people that have had to produce more than an official short-form certificate. I don't know exactly how to "prove" that to you, but it is a fact.

In fact, let me simplify this a great deal for you.

Let's read your quote again.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Unfortunately, I know that the short-form certificate is not valid for many sensitive positions within government, so Obama is not being held to any higher standard than any other applicant for a high security position would be.

Let's look at one of your reasons.

Everyone of those positions required many months of interviews with family, friends, ex-neighbors, and even a battery of lie-detector tests!

K, yes or no. If your friend had provided a long form birth certificate would they have avoided the months of interviews and battery of tests? Yes or no?

I don't recall ever having a President or anyone running for the office bolding saying out of his own mouth, "I was born in Kenya". That in itself demands proof to me that he was not. Also, his wife says her husband was born in Kenya. With the lack of a long form birth certificate shown from Hawaii, my guess the man WAS born in Kenya!

Originally posted by getreadyalready
My opinion is that the "birther" discussion should now be centered on what we propose to do about the 2012 and subsequent elections. Do we want them to be similar to every previous election, or do we want to make some changes?

Very much understood and agreed. Thanks for the clarification.

Originally posted by aero56
What does it mean? I posted earlier and no one responded. The Constitution says "natural born citizen, OR, citizen of the United States."""" What does "or" mean?

Sorry I didn't see your earlier question or I would have answered.

You have cut off the quote. Here it is in full:

Article II Section 1

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;

The grandfather provision of the "natural born Citizen" clause provided an exception to the "natural born" requirement for those persons who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. (The first several Presidents prior to Martin van Buren as well as potential Presidential candidates such as Alexander Hamilton were born as British subjects in British America before the American Revolution and this grandfather clause would cover them.

Wiki

reply to post by Sinnthia


Oh, I understood that. I just stick my nose in and answer questions posed by other people sometimes. I was just saying that I agreed with you and that GRAR was wrong in wanting Obama to meet higher standards than other presidents, but his last post cleared up his position on that. At least for me.

Originally posted by boogiegk
I don't recall ever having a President or anyone running for the office bolding saying out of his own mouth, "I was born in Kenya".

Obama never said that. Hoax Forum

Also, his wife says her husband was born in Kenya.

Wrong again. She said Kenya was his "homeland". That is not the same as being born there. He is a first generation American on his father's side. Kenya AND the US are his homelands, because they are where his parents are from.

.

I applied a few years ago for an electrical union position. Before I could even take the test, I needed at least 4 documents. Birth certificate, SSN, driver's license, and high school transcripts. Then you are eligible to take the test for application into the union. All trade unions work the same way that I have seen.
I haven't seen one illegal in any trade union in my area to date.
If I have to go to those lengths just for an application, I think the poddible POTUS should follow suit.

reply to post by anon72


Very much so, we're not yet privvy to the full facts, although I'm sure we will be in time, but one fact that is confirmed and that stands out, is Obama and the people that got him there are hiding something for sure, and going a long way to hide whatever it is.